The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-10-22
DIR. SWEETSER'S "OHANGEABLE
GOD"

GOD"
A word in reply to DIR. Sweetser's
latest. We will be brief. In our last
we treated the DOCTORS theological per-
turbation leniently. We had charity
to believe that he did not really mean
to affirm any change in God that affects
his nature, character, or principle of
activity, or relation to his children, but
had only got a notion into his head
that there must be some emotional or
sentimental change in God, correspond
ing to the change that takes place in
the moral condition of man, very much
like the notion that some have, that
God really suffers" on account of
mans sin. Taking this charitable view
of the doctors position, we tried to
show, that allowing it to be true, it
amounted to nothing; that it did not
affect in the least the divine activity;
that God treated us just the same as
though he was not subject to this change
of feeling. In this we think we were
successful.
If now the doctor really means to go
farther than this, as he seems to, and
affirms that this change in God is radi-
cal, that it touches the fundamental
principle of his activity, that Goa be-
came so angry with man on account of
his sin that Christ had to die to ap-
pease his wrath, or that Christ in any
way is the "cause'' of Gods present
love for man, or his willingness to for
give him, or of any real change of his
disposition toward man, his position
amounts to great deal. 1t revolution
ICES our theology. Instead of an I'M
changeable God we have changeable
one, and faith is without foundation
and religion becomes a delusion. Uni
versalism surely can never be based on
a changeable GCd. If God is not i'm
mutable in his love for man, then there
is no foundation for our faith. Besides
this doctrine is not Christian; it is
heather. We have regarded DR.. Sweet
ser as too good a Christian Universalist
to entertain such an idea for moment.
One of two things, therefore, follows
Either the Doctors position amounts to
nothing, or else it amounts to so much
as to be revolutionary. We were charita-
BILE enough to believe the former. We
hope the doctor will not force us to
change our mind.
AS to our logic, it may be very illog-
ical, but the Doctors assertion does not
make it so, and his examples do not
prove it so. The difficulty with the
doctor is that to get basis for some
change in his God, he is all the while
trying to make distinction without
a difference" We are speaking of
Gods relation to moral beings, and in
this relation there is no difference be-
tween his goodness and his love. In
this ethical relation love is the active
principle of divine goodness. AS to
Gods acting toward man from other
motives than that of love, it is very
easy to resolve all that the doctor gives
us into love. For instance, in the last
analysis, what's the creative impulse"
but love ? "He loved US into being"
What is the ''moral harmony of the
universe" but love, love of God for man
and love of man for God? We may be
''laboring under confusion of terms"
but the trouble with the doctor is that
he is laboring under confusion Of
ideas. AS to sin we yield to no man in
our sense of the 'sinfalness of sin,"
but we imagine that sin may be very
serious thing without making the In
finite God mad. Our conclusion is that
the doctor has been reading some ortho-
dox theology of late-we seem to see
the trail of the serpent in his articles
and imagines that he has found some
thing when he has only got his brain a
little twisted. Clear up your ideas,
doctor S. CRANE.